https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEUxwnNFi98 Car Accident Lawsuits Modified comparative negligence The modified comparative negligence rule in lawsuits involving car accidents is a legal principle that allows partial recovery of damages even if other party was at the fault. This idea was created to make the process more fair for both sides. A court may reduce the amount of financial compensation awarded if an individual is partially at fault for an accident to reflect their part in the cause. In some states, the concept of pure negligence may also be applied. It is used to determine who was the most responsible for the accident. In this scenario the person could be 50% at fault for an accident, and then recover just $1,000 from the other party. This is known as the 50 rule. Modified rules for comparative negligence allow the person to collect damages from the other driver if they were the cause of an accident. Pure comparative negligence doesn't have a similar rule, however, it allows an individual to collect from the insurance company of the other driver company when they were the one responsible for the accident. In New York, for example Pure comparative negligence is a possibility when a driver has acted in violation of the stop sign. The other driver was not able to stop the collision. The evidence from the accident will be used to determine the cause of actions during the trial. Lawyers and insurance companies will examine a variety of elements to determine fault. They may look into intoxication levels or weather conditions as well as other factors that might impact the accident. These factors can even impact the amount of damages a person is entitled to from an insurance company. Pure contributory negligence Pure contributory negligence in car crash lawsuits is the fact that one or more parties did not use reasonable care and attention when operating their vehicles. is more straightforward to prove in certain instances than in others. The percentage of fault th